- This topic has 3 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
My question – how is it that George W. Bush had to go through the U.N. for what seemed like many years to try to stop Sadaam Hussein, yet we don't hear about Obama putting pressure on the U.N. in regard to Syria? I haven't been following the crisis there all that closely, but it seems like the calls for invasion/bombing came awfully quickly. Where is the U.N. in all of this?
The hypocrisy of all this is simply remarkeable. What I do like seeing though is even Obama's most ardent Progressive supporters are furious about this (according to comments left by them on articles).
Technically, GW did not have to go through the UN, he chose to in order to increase his perceived legitimacy. Obama can't go to the UNSC because both Russia and China have announced that they will veto any resolution authorizing a strike. What I find hilarious is that it was the folks on Obama's side of the fence who screamed that without the UN GW was in the wrong let they turn a blind eye when Obama does the same. If I recall corrrectly, there was no UN mandate for strikes in Libya in 2011 either.
I think any chance at legitimacy in the international eye has to be done through the U.N. While U.S. presidents may not have to do so under law, the appearance of legitimate authority occurs only when there is a collection of agreement among them. Otherwise, it appears (and may in fact be true) that one nation is acting as an independent aggressor apart from the collective good will of the nations. It amazes me that Obama, who is apparently adored by Europeans, would forgo the European “way” and start sabre rattling rather quickly.
I think legitimacy, like power, comes from strength. If we go to the UN we are surrendering some of our power. I also don't buy the collective agreement is better argument. Why would I think that the interests of any other nation necessarily coincide with mine? Collective agreement can be good at times but is not always necessary and never a requirement.
If we were living in a world in which the morality of other nations was starkly different than our own, perhaps collective agreement would not be worthwhile. However, I can say that the U.S. is generally on the same page as Europe and elsewhere when it comes to things like self defense, so I assume that Europe will generally acknowledge (though not always) the interests of the U.S.If the U.S. simply acted unilaterally, it would alienate itself from other countries and make it harder to get military assistance when needed, economic development during times of peace, and overall cooperation.Also, we have to consider that Europe is much closer to the place where the fighting generally occurs. If we act unilaterally in the Middle East, there's a decent chance that retaliation could be made in European cities. In other words, even if the U.S. acts, other countries could suffer the repercussions, so it is important that we don't act solely with our own interests or concerns in mind.
To play Devil's advocate. Isn't it international law about banning chemical weapons? It wasn't the US only who made the law. So if this is about the use of CW, then we should go to the UN not for permission but to demand a coalition so we don't do it alone.Now of Syria was an actually threat to our own national security, which it isn't, then the heck with the UN.
Upcoming on my blog – Syria said Tuesday it has accepted Russia's proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling: Let's see, John Kerry makes an off the cuff remark, Russia Jumps on it as a serious proposal, Russia then gets Assad to buy into it, and the US Administration is left tap-dancing trying to justify attacks whose raison d'etre has just disappeared. If the Syrian CBRN crisis has not showcased how inept and amateurish current US foreign policy is, I don't know what else could. Perhaps we should threaten to attack Venezuela over their recent power outages as causing unneeded human suffering.What gets me about this whole deal is there has not really been a discussion of interests. There has been a lot of talk about morality, international norms, a treaty Syria never signed, and of course the children. What there has been a decided lack of from the WH is a frank explanation of which US National Interest is threatened by Syria gassing their own people. I know it sounds callous to say it so bluntly but how do we have a dog in this fight? Assad is a jerk and the rebels are just as bad. Either way we end up helping someone who hates and that is never a good idea. I also fail to understand why the other ME governments are doing nothing, they have much more at stake in the war's outcome than we do. It is about time they stood up an took responsibility. The way I see it we have two things that would cause us to get involved. 1. A Syrian attack on Turkey, a NATO ally or 2. an attack on Israel. Other than that let them kill each other off.Lastly, Obama and his team are showing their *** in a spectacular way and proving to the world that the American people have elected an idiot not once, but twice. You should hear some of the analysis coming out of the European press. The days of Euro-liberals wetting their pants at the mention of his name are over. Between the NSA revelations and the fumbling of Syria Obama is not seen as the savior over here anymore. I actually think the NSA scandal hurt him more because it is a clear violation of things he promised to put a stop to before his first election.
You have a good point – no U.S. interests seem to be at stake in Syria, which made the case for a strike rather confusing.
The days of Euro-liberals wetting their pants at the mention of his name are over. Between the NSA revelations and the fumbling of Syria Obama is not seen as the savior over here anymore. I actually think the NSA scandal hurt him more because it is a clear violation of things he promised to put a stop to before his first election.
The sad thing about it is that the thing which should have been a bigger issue was the IRS-Tea Party scandal. That involved actual targeting of political opponents by the government, whereas the NSA scandal involved potential violation of privacy.While I hope Obama's support is eroding so he cannot do further damage to our country, I suspect that after a few weeks people will rally around his calls once he throws them policy bones which relate to socially liberal issues.
The sad thing about it is that the thing which should have been a bigger issue was the IRS-Tea Party scandal. That involved actual targeting of political opponents by the government, whereas the NSA scandal involved potential violation of privacy.
I agree with you 100% that the IRS scandal should have a higher priority than violations of privacy.
Speaking of the IRS Scandal, the Washington Times will not let the story die. They have a pretty steady driblle of articles coming out following the path of the ongoing Congressional Investigation. There have not been any bombshells recently and the MSM is doing their best to ignore it. Here is the latest: Emails show IRS’ Lois Lerner specifically targeted tea party
